LANSING, Mich. (WZMQ) – Michigan lawmakers are advancing competing visions for how to fund K-12 schools, with the state Senate proposing a higher spending plan that restructures how aid is distributed, while the House takes a more policy-driven approach with targeted investments and cuts.
The Senate’s $22 billion School Aid budget for the 2026 to 27 fiscal year represents a $723.2 million increase, or about 3.4%, over the current year. The proposal raises the foundation allowance to $10,300 per pupil, a figure both chambers agree on, but diverges significantly in how additional funding is allocated.
At the center of the Senate plan is a shift toward a weighted foundation allowance, combining and expanding funding for at-risk students and English language learners. The proposal increases those funding streams by 25 percent and begins phasing in a new formula over 15 years that ties more dollars to student need rather than flat per-pupil distributions.
“As you all saw, we passed another historic education budget out of our subcommittee,” said Sen. Darren Camilleri (D-Trenton), chair of the Senate education appropriations subcommittee. “It is another historic investment in education, including investing in the students who need it the most.”
Camilleri said the long-term structure is designed to create stability and predictability for schools.
“If it is in the revised school code, it is state law, so that every year we will be working toward meeting the targets,” he said. “A one-year budget is not a long-term plan.”
The Michigan Education Association praised that approach, arguing it better targets resources to students facing the greatest challenges.
“For the sake of our students and their future, state lawmakers must work together to ensure local schools have adequate, stable funding,” said MEA President and CEO Chandra Madafferi. “The state Senate’s education budget does just that, by including base funding increases to address rising costs and much-needed investments in critical programs that help students and families from every corner of our state.”
The Senate plan also builds in structural protections for districts facing enrollment declines, allowing them to calculate funding based on either current enrollment or a three-year average, a change aimed at stabilizing budgets in shrinking districts.
Beyond the core formula, the Senate budget includes a range of targeted investments:
• $255 million in per-pupil mental health and school safety grants, along with additional funding for safety technology and violence prevention programs
• $150 million in one-time transportation funding to help districts offset rising busing costs
• $60 million for dual enrollment and career and technical education incentives
• $764.3 million for the Great Start Readiness Program, expanding preschool access to roughly 68,000 children statewide
• $21 million in new per-pupil funding for school libraries
The plan also restores or expands several previously cut programs, including early learning partnerships, MiSTEM grants, and literacy initiatives, while investing $50 million in high-impact tutoring and $12 million in early math improvement programs.
Camilleri said the Senate also prioritized literacy, putting about $235 million toward related programs, including $50 million for LETRS training and $50 million for tutoring.
“We’re investing more money in school libraries,” he said. “Putting those books in the hands of kids is one of the ways that we can help address the literacy crisis.”
Notably, the Senate plan reduces funding for cyber schools to 80 percent of the foundation allowance, about $8,240 per pupil, and rolls some smaller programs into broader funding streams, reflecting a shift toward simplifying the funding structure.
In contrast, the House plan totals roughly $21.5 billion for K-12 education and grows spending more modestly, by about 1.1%. While it matches the $10,300 per pupil baseline, the House rejects the weighted funding model and instead maintains categorical grants for specific programs.
Rep. Tim Kelly(R-Saginaw Township), chair of the House School Aid subcommittee, said the House plan focuses on targeted investments and accountability rather than long-term structural changes.
“I think funding some things like CTE and early childhood, but also trying to do something a little different, the $40 million in private tutoring,” Kelly said. “And some of the accountability that we put in, trying to get back to some degree of A to F and even third-grade reading retention, trying to infuse a little accountability back in the process.”
The House approach relies more heavily on targeted spending initiatives, including investments in literacy, math, and school safety, while offsetting costs through reductions to programs such as Grow Your Own teacher pipelines and FAFSA completion incentives.
It also includes broader policy provisions tied to funding, including new requirements and restrictions related to curriculum and school operations, which are largely absent from the Senate plan.
Kelly pushed back on criticism that the House plan underfunds key priorities, noting it still increases funding for at-risk and English learner students.
“We’ve kept making investments in those, so it’s not like we’re not,” he said. “Our budget increases both at-risk and ELL funding, just not the permanency yet.”
He also defended the lower overall spending level, saying House Republicans are trying to scale back from pandemic era funding levels.
“We’d like to try and get back to pre-COVID levels of spending,” Kelly said. “We’re trying to right-size budgets to some degree.”
The differences set up a significant negotiation between the two chambers over both spending levels and funding philosophy.
The Senate proposal emphasizes systemic changes, directing more money through formulas tied to student need and increasing overall investment. The House plan prioritizes program-specific funding and policy changes, while holding overall spending growth to a lower level.
Lawmakers must now reconcile the two approaches before the legal deadline of July 1, with debates expected to center on whether Michigan should adopt a weighted funding model, how much to spend overall, and what policy conditions should be attached to school funding.
“We do have some differences,” Camilleri said. “We’ll hammer those things out once we get this thing done.”
